ECCouncil Updated 312-50v13 Exam Questions and Answers by alvin

White-box testing (also known as clear box testing, glass box testing, transparent box testing, and structural testing) is a method of software testing that tests internal structures or workings of an application, as opposed to its functionality (i.e. black-box testing). In white-box testing, an internal perspective of the system, as well as programming skills, are used to design test cases. The tester chooses inputs to exercise paths through the code and determine the expected outputs. This is analogous to testing nodes in a circuit, e.g. in-circuit testing (ICT). White-box testing can be applied at the unit, integration and system levels of the software testing process. Although traditional testers tended to think of white-box testing as being done at the unit level, it is used for integration and system testing more frequently today. It can test paths within a unit, paths between units during integration, and between subsystems during a system-level test. Though this method of test design can uncover many errors or problems, it has the potential to miss unimplemented parts of the specification or missing requirements. Where white-box testing is design-driven,[1] that is, driven exclusively by agreed specifications of how each component of the software is required to behave (as in DO-178C and ISO 26262 processes) then white-box test techniques can accomplish assessment for unimplemented or missing requirements.

White-box test design techniques include the following code coverage criteria:

· Control flow testing

· Data flow testing

· Branch testing

· Statement coverage

· Decision coverage

· Modified condition/decision coverage

· Prime path testing

· Path testing

This scenario illustrates physical impersonation, a social engineering tactic discussed in CEH v13 Social Engineering. The attacker exploits trust in appearance and role assumption, dressing as a network technician to gain access without challenge.

Unlike tailgating (which involves following someone), this attack relies on assumed authority and familiarity. CEH v13 categorizes this under impersonation attacks, where attackers pose as employees, contractors, or vendors.

Other options describe different social engineering vectors:

A: Phone-based pretexting

B: Dumpster diving

C: Vishing

Physical impersonation is particularly dangerous because it bypasses technical controls entirely. Option D best matches the scenario.

The Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH) Cloud Computing module emphasizes that serverless environments rely heavily on granular permission models. Attacks involving compromised APIs often succeed because functions are granted excessive privileges.

Option D is correct because enforcing function-level permissions and the principle of least privilege directly limits what a compromised function can execute. CEH documentation states this is the primary defense against serverless abuse.

Option A is beneficial but reactive.

Option B focuses on SaaS governance rather than FaaS execution control.

Option C provides visibility but does not directly prevent privilege misuse.

CEH highlights identity and access management (IAM) as critical in serverless security.

UDP scanning produces reliable "closed" results only when an ICMP Port Unreachable is returned. Silent responses indicate either open ports (no reply expected) or filtered ports (blocks dropping packets). CEH emphasizes that non-responses require retransmission or alternate verification techniques.